Comparative effectiveness and safety of different basal insulins in a real-world setting.

Aims To compare glucose control and safety of different basal insulin therapies ( BI, including Insulin NPH, glargine and detemir) in real-world clinical settings based on a large-scale registry study. Methods In this multi-center 6-month prospective observational study, patients with type 2 diabetes ( HbA1c ≥ 7%) who were uncontrolled by oral anti-diabetic drugs ( OADs) and were willing to initiate BI therapy were enrolled from 209 hospitals within 8 regions of China. Type and dose of BI were at the physician's discretion and the patients' willingness. Interviews were conducted at 0 months (visit 1), 3 months (visit 2) and 6 months (visit 3). Outcomes included change in HbA1c, hypoglycemia rate and body weight from baseline at 6 months. Results A total of 16 341 and 9002 subjects were involved in Intention- To- Treat ( ITT) and per-protocol ( PP) analysis, respectively. After PS regression adjustment, ITT analysis showed that reduction in HbA1c in glargine (2.2% ± 2.1%) and detemir groups (2.2% ± 2.1%) was higher than that in the NPH group (2.0% ± 2.2%) ( P < .01). The detemir group had the lowest weight gain (−0.1 ± 2.9 kg) compared with the glargine (+0.1 ± 3.0 kg) and NPH (+0.3 ± 3.1 kg) groups ( P < .05). The glargine group had the lowest rate of minor hypoglycaemia, while there was no difference in severe hypoglycaemia among the 3 groups. The results observed in PP analyses were consistent with those in ITT analysis. Conclusion In a real-world clinical setting in China, treatment with long-acting insulin analogues was associated with better glycaemic control, as well as less hypoglycaemia and weight gain than treatment with NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes patients. However, the clinical relevance of these observations must be interpreted with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]